Granting, therefore, that the answer given by the Spartans to Pheidippidês is to be construed, not as a general rule applicable to the whole year, but as referring to the particular month in which it was given,—no inference can be drawn from hence as to the day of the battle of Marathon, because either one of the two following suppositions is possible: 1. The Spartans may have had solemnities on the day of the full moon, or on the day before it, in other months besides Karneius; 2. Or the full moon of the Spartan Karneius may actually have fallen, in the year 490 B. C., on the fifth or sixth of the Attic month Boëdromion.
Dr. Thirlwall appears to adopt the view of Boeckh, but does not add anything material to the reasons in its favor (Hist. of Gr. vol. ii, Append. iii, p. 488).
[673] Herodot. vi, 119. Darius—σφέας τῆς Κισσίης χώρης κατοίκισε ἐν σταθμῷ ἑωϋτοῦ τῷ οὔνομα ἐστὶ Ἀρδέρικκα—ἐνθαῦτα τοὺς Ἐρετριέας κατοίκισε Δαρεῖος, οἳ καὶ μέχρι ἐμέο εἶχον τὴν χώρην ταύτην, φυλάσοντες τὴν ἀρχαίην γλῶσσαν. The meaning of the word σταθμὸς is explained by Herodot. v, 52. σταθμὸς ἑωϋτοῦ is the same as σταθμὸς βασιλήϊος: the particulars which Herodotus recounts about Arderikka, and its remarkable well, or pit of bitumen, salt, and oil, give every reason to believe that he had himself stopped there.
Strabo places the captive Eretrians in Gordyênê, which would be considerably higher up the Tigris; upon whose authority, we do not know (Strabo, xv, p. 747).
The many particulars which are given respecting the descendants of these Eretrians in Kissia, by Philostratus, in his Life of Apollonius of Tyana, as they are alleged to have stood even in the first century of the Christian era, cannot be safely quoted. With all the fiction there contained, some truth may perhaps be mingled; but we cannot discriminate it (Philostratus, Vit. Apollon. i, c. 24-30).
[674] Herodot. vi, 133. ἔπλεε ἐπὶ Πάρον, πρόφασιν ἔχων ὡς οἱ Πάριοι ὕπηρξαν πρότεροι στρατευόμενοι τριήρεϊ ἐς Μαραθῶνα ἅμα τῷ Πέρσῃ. Τοῦτο μὲν δὴ πρόσχημα τοῦ λόγου ἦν· ἀτάρ τινα καὶ ἔγκοτον εἶχε τοῖσι Παρίοισι διὰ Λυσαγόρεα τὸν Τισίεω, ἐόντα γένος Πάριον, διαβαλόντα μιν πρὸς Ὑδάρνεα τὸν Πέρσην.
[675] Ephorus (Fragm. 107, ed. Didot; ap. Stephan. Byz. v. Πάρος) gave an account of this expedition in several points different from Herodotus, which latter I here follow. The authority of Herodotus is preferable in every respect; the more so, since Ephorus gives his narrative as a sort of explanation of the peculiar phrase ἀναπαριάζειν. Explanatory narratives of that sort are usually little worthy of attention.
[676] Herodot. vi, 136. Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ ἐκ Πάρου Μιλτιάδεα ἀπονοστήσαντα ἔσχον ἐν στόμασι, οἵ τε ἄλλοι, καὶ μάλιστα Ξάνθιππος ὁ Ἀρίφρονος· ὃς θανάτου ὑπαγαγὼν ὑπὸ τὸν δῆμον Μιλτιάδεα, ἐδίωκε τῆς Ἀθηναίων ἀπάτης εἵνεκεν. Μιλτιάδης δὲ, αὐτὸς μὲν παρεὼν, οὐκ ἀπελογέετο· ἦν γὰρ ἀδύνατος, ὥστε σηπομένου τοῦ μηροῦ. Προκειμένου δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐν κλίνῃ, ὑπεραπελογέοντο οἱ φίλοι, τῆς μάχης τε τῆς ἐν Μαραθῶνι γενομένης πολλὰ ἐπιμεμνημένοι, καὶ τὴν Λήμνου αἵρεσιν· ὡς ἑλὼν Λῆμνόν τε καὶ τισάμενος τοὺς Πελασγοὺς, παρέδωκε Ἀθηναίοισι. Προσγενομένου δὲ τοῦ δήμου αὐτῷ κατὰ τὴν ἀπόλυσιν τοῦ θανάτου, ζημιώσαντος δὲ κατὰ τὴν ἀδικίην πεντήκοντα ταλάντοισι, Μιλτιάδης μὲν μετὰ ταῦτα, σφακελίσαντός τε τοῦ μηροῦ καὶ σαπέντος, τελευτᾷ· τὰ δὲ πεντήκοντα τάλαντα ἐξέτισεν ὁ πάϊς αὐτοῦ Κίμων.
Plato (Gorgias, c. 153, p. 516) says that the Athenians passed a vote to cast Miltiadês into the barathrum (ἐμβαλεῖν ἐψηφίσαντο), and that he would have been actually thrown in, if it had not been for the prytanis, i. e. the president, by turn for that day, of the prytanizing senators and of the ekklesia. The prytanis may perhaps have been among those who spoke to the dikastery on behalf of Miltiadês, deprecating the proposition made by Xanthippus; but that he should have caused a vote once passed to be actually rescinded, is incredible. The Scholiast on Aristeidês (cited by Valckenaer ad Herodot. vi, 136) reduces the exaggeration of Plato to something more reasonable—Ὅτε γὰρ ἐκρίνετο Μιλτιάδης ἐπὶ τῇ Πάρῳ, ἠθέλσαν αὐτὸν κατακρημνίσαι· ὁ δὲ πρύτανις εἰσελθὼν ἐξῃτήσατο αὐτὸν.
[677] That this was the habitual course of Attic procedure in respect to public indictments, wherever a positive amount of penalty was not previously determined, appears certain. See Platner, Prozess und Klagen bei den Attikern, Abschn. vi, vol. i, p. 201; Heffter, Die Athenäische Gerichtsverfassung, p. 334. Meier and Schömann (Der Attische Prozess, b. iv, p. 725) maintain that any one of the dikasts might propose a third measure of penalty, distinct from that proposed by the accuser as well as the accused. In respect to public indictments, this opinion appears decidedly incorrect; but where the sentence to be pronounced involved a compensation for private wrong and an estimate of damages, we cannot so clearly determine whether there was not sometimes a greater latitude in originating propositions for the dikasts to vote upon. It is to be recollected that these dikasts were several hundred, sometimes even more, in number,—that there was no discussion or deliberation among them,—and that it was absolutely necessary for some distinct proposition to be laid before them to take a vote upon. In regard to some offences, the law expressly permitted what was called a προστíμημα; that is, after the dikasts had pronounced the full penalty demanded by the accuser, any other citizen who thought the penalty so imposed insufficient, might call for a certain limited amount of additional penalty, and require the dikasts to vote upon it,—ay or no. The votes of the dikasts were given, by depositing pebbles in two casks, under certain arrangements of detail.